RESEARCH & ADVOCACY

On 24 June, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) announced the election of Mr. Hugh Mercer from the UK as the next judge of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), for a non-renewable term of nine years.

While we congratulate Mr. Mercer, his appointment marks yet another missed opportunity to advance gender parity in a key international human rights tribunal. With this appointment, the United Kingdom—despite being the State with the highest number of judges elected to the Court—adds one more man to the list of only men from the country who have served on the Court. In fact, to date, all nine judges elected from the UK have been male, making it the country with the worst track record on gender equality at the Court.

In May 2024, at the start of the national nomination process, the GQUAL Campaign and a group of leading organizations and experts called on the UK government to address the historic absence of UK women judges at the European Court of Human Rights. We specifically urged the UK authorities to consider submitting an all-female list of three qualified candidates to ensure that a woman would finally be appointed to the ECtHR.

Despite the fact that highly qualified women applied for the vacancy, in May 2025 the UK failed to implement a women-only shortlist and instead submitted to the Committee on the Election of Judges of the Council of Europe a list of three qualified candidates: a male candidate listed first, a female candidate second, and another male candidate third.

In June 2025, despite the UK’s glaring record of never having a woman serve as judge at the ECtHR and the fact that women represent a minority of judges at the Court, the PACE elected yet another man.

The UK’s nomination and the subsequent election raise serious concerns, appearing openly at odds with the principles and commitments upheld by the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has stated that “[b]alanced participation of women and men in political and public decision-making implies defining and adopting concerted strategies as well as a global and transparent intervention involving not only the government, but also a wide range of actors.”

Moreover, in its General Recommendation No. 40 on the equal and inclusive participation of women in decision-making systems, the CEDAW Committee reaffirmed that Article 8 of the Convention obliges States to ensure the representation of women on equal footing with men in international decision-making bodies, including international courts. The Committee has previously clarified that “States parties have a responsibility, where it is within their control … to appoint women to senior decision-making roles.” This includes taking proactive measures in international recruitment processes to target women candidates and, where appropriate and all qualification requirements are met, to give preference to women over male candidates.

In line with these obligations, PACE’s own guidelines clearly state that “[t]o ensure gender-balance on the Court, States are also asked to put forward at least one candidate from each sex.” More importantly, PACE allows for single-sex lists only when the candidates belong to the under-represented sex at the Court—a category women still fall into, as they continue to hold only 37% of the seats. The UK, therefore, was not only entitled but encouraged to submit an all-women list or to prioritize equally qualified female candidates. Choosing not to do so perpetuated a long-standing pattern of exclusion that further undermines the Court’s legitimacy, representativeness, and the broader goal of gender equality in international justice.

Given the existing gaps and failure of the current rules to ensure gender parity in the composition of the ECtHR, we strongly call on Member States and the PACE to take stronger more concerted action to ensure that women are represented in parity before the Court.

The lack of gender parity representation of women at the ECtHR erodes the legitimacy of the institution, and it is extremely detrimental to the credibility of the Council of Europe and its members in upholding the principles of equality and non-discrimination.